Obama is that once-in-a-generation transformative candidate

[ClarkUSA]

Roger Cohen of The New York Times writes:

"If the globe can’t vote next November, it can find itself in Obama. Troubled by the violent chasm between the West and the
Islamic world? Obama seems to bridge it. Disturbed by the gulf between rich and poor that globalization spurs? Obama, the
African-American, gets it: the South Side of Chicago is the South Side of the world.

Michael Ignatieff, the deputy leader of Canada’s opposition Liberal Party, said: “Outsiders know it’s your choice. Still, they are
following this election with passionate interest. And it’s clear Barack Obama would be the first globalized American leader,
the first leader in whom internationalism would not be a credo, it would be in his veins.”

To the south, in Mexico, resentment of the Bush administration has less to do with American unilateralism and more with stalled
immigration policy and the building of a border fence. But the thirst for change is the same.

“Mexicans want evidence that things are shifting, which means the Democrats, and of course... a black like Obama, would signal
a huge cultural change,” said Jorge Castañeda, a former foreign minister.

“My sense is the symbolism in Mexico of a dark-skinned American president would be enormous. We’ve got female leaders now
in Latin America — in Chile, in Argentina. But the idea of a U.S. leader who looks the way the world looks as seen from Mexico is
revolutionary.”

I see nobody else who would represent such a Kennedy-like restorative charge at a time when America often seems out of sync
with the world... Obama, in many ways, is where the world is going. He embodies interconnectedness where the Bush administration
has projected separateness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/opinion/15cohen.html


*******

Paul Waldman in the American Prospect writes:

"Though it may not be reflected yet in national polls, the candidate generating the most enthusiasm among the young is unsurprisingly
Barack Obama. As others have noted recently, if Obama were to become president, the symbolic value of him taking the oath of office --
a multi-racial man who was partly raised overseas in a Muslim country -- would provide such an extraordinary contrast with his predecessor,
the very embodiment of what many see as the worst of America in all his ignorance, arrogance, and parochialism, that it would instantly suck
the life out of a good portion of the anti-Americanism that has presented such an obstacle in recent years.

An Obama presidency could have a similar effect among young voters. He is, after all, only 46 years old, and his arguments about moving
beyond the conflicts of the 1960s and the obsessions of the Baby Boomers have particular resonance for the young. Obama could become
for this generation of young people what John F. Kennedy was to the Baby Boomers -- the dashing young president who articulated an
idealistic spirit they wanted to believe in."

Link: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_youth_vote_the_culture_wars_and_barack_obama

*******

Ezra Klein writes:

"I'll join the chorus of folks arguing that the very sight of Barack Obama taking the oath of office would do more to restore America's
good name in the world than any imaginable policy platform."

Link: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/11/a-giuliani-pres.html

*******

Seymour Hersh on why he thinks Obama is the best presidential candidate:

'Barack Obama represents "the only hope for the US in the Muslim world," according to Pulitzer-prize winning investigative
reporter Seymour Hersh. Because Obama's father was a Muslim, he "could lead a reconciliation between the Muslim countries
and the US." With any of the other candidates as president, Hersh said, "we're facing two or three decades of problems in the
Mideast, with 1.2 billion Muslims."'

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/?pid=252300

[dkf]

1. That gives me the shivers

With Obama, we can heal the world. Everything is possible because we can work on our collective problems.

No more us first...but the planet first and making sure we will all have clean energy technology when the oil runs out.

[Kahuna]

8. My take is that if Obama is elected the south will finally have to give

up refighting the civil war. I'm very serious about this.

[Hekate]

25. Me too. All along I've kept having the sense that he could be "the one"...

...the one to break through barriers, the one to be the youth candidate, the one to be the bridge that unites us...

And I feel afraid to invest that much hope in any candidate. In my lifetime I (and everyone else in my generation) have been battered by political betrayals, and by the assassination of leader after leader. I recognize Obama's human flaws, too.

Officially I am an undecided voter tending toward Edwards. But dammit... I can't help feeling that Obama could be the one.

Hekate

[silverweb]

2. Wonderful post.

And I absolutely agree with all of it.


GObama!

[ClarkUSA]

36. It's nice to know we're in good company.

Besides Iowans, of course. :toast:

[jackbourassa]

3. What a great thread!

Very inspirational.

I've always wondered about things like this. I think back to all the great leaders in history, you know the ones who took on the establishment to set a new course for their respective countries. I've always wondered if we would even recognize such a person if they presented themselves to us. Or whether we would contribute to tearing them down. Hillary to me is the establishment candidate. She represents the status quo. Things won't change that much from now if she is even elected.

Hillary's face is a mask of insincerity. Her goal isn't change. Her goal is power. Power for power sake. Power to satisfy that inate arrogance that exists inside her. You know the one, where she thinks no one can do what she does.

Obama represents something new. Something fresh. A new start for our party and for our republic. I'm really loving his new message.

I'm so glad people are starting to see him the way we have always seen him.

I think he's going to win this thing. Because all Hillary has are the polls. Obama has just as much money. He does just as well in the polls. He has WAY BETTER internals. He has a fresher approach. Is a better and more inspirational public speaker. He has better issues.

All Hillary has is a famous last name.

After she loses Iowa there will be an avalanche. People are "parking" their votes with her because they want to support the leader and rally behind her/him. If the "impression" of inevitable nominee is shattered, what will she have left? Like I wrote above, Obama is the better natural candidate. Her numbers will collapse like a rock. You live by the polls, you die by the polls.

This is where standing up for something actually benefits a candidate.

[ClarkUSA]

24. Excellent and thoughtful analysis.

I agree 100%. :thumbsup:

[weeve]

4. Big Media is ...

... doing their best to make this a TWO PERSON race. Primarily because John Edwards is the biggest threat to their interests .. their profit.

They know he is the MOST electable ( in the South, Mid-West, and elsewhere )... so want to make sure that he doesn't get the nomination ( like Howard Dean ... see how they wield their media power ).

Obama's pro-nuclear. Not good. He embraces homophobe preachers. Also not good. A bit too corporate friendly. He or Hillary as the nominee will lose us votes. Racists/sexists don't cross over. Fact.

This is not the time to gamble on our weakest candidates when a potential 8-1 conservative Supreme Court for decades to come is in the offing, should we lose the White House.

Now is the time to get behind John Edwards in a BIG way. Don't let the trolls (here and elsewhere) and Big Media dictate who our nominee should be. Check out their policies yourself. And realize that the big $$$ folk are going to try to buy this election out from under you. Audience plants, corporate media pals (Murdoch, etc.), their internet armies ... you name it.

It can definitely be intimidating, but let's organize, deploy our ground troops, and hopefully TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK !!

VOTE John Edwards !!

[Chulanowa]

5. We're going to win. We could nominate a labrador retriever and win.

"Vote Binky '08; Back to ball lickin'!"

Clinton and Obama are probably our weakest candidates on the issues, I agree. But either one of them will win.

Know why the media's pushing them? Self-interest, sure. But historically, the media's self-interest has always spun Republican. So why back these two? Because the Republicans stand no chance against any of the Dem nominees. Hyping Giuliani or Thompson is just a waste of money.

I don't like Clinton much, and Obama seems very gimmicky to me. But I'll be happy with either of them, no question.

[earthlover]

6. They thought the Titanic was unsinkable, so they didn't care about the icebergs

Sorry to rain on our parade, but the Reps are very good at getting elected. Not at governing, but at getting elected. Bush will not be running. The Reps will put lipstick on their pig, bash the Democrats, and hope for the best among the independents who decide the election (who, by definition, are not Democrats).

The stakes this time are even higher than last. We as a nation cannot afford an 8-1 Supreme Court. We can't afford another war in Iran. Another Republican administration to further many of Bush's policies is unthinkable.

So we should run scared. Very scared. Beware of overconfidences. We need to nominate someone who is the best candidate, and the most electable candidate. We can't take chances this time. And we cannot afford the luxory of thinking we cannot lose.

[Chulanowa]

18. You have a point, to a degree

I don't believe that we're going to find any, as you put it, icebergs. But there are things we can do to increase our chances of avoiding them entirely.

Yes, putting our strongest candidate up there would definitely do it. I'm all for that. I was simply saying that against the Pubs, any of our candidates is almost guaranteed.

Primarily, we need to get our candidates to leave Bush out of it. As you say, he is not running. They need to focus their attention on their Republican opponents, in order to keep those little seeds from sprouting in the first place. Of course, some of the best material to clobber the Republicans with (Guiliani's attempt at being Marilyn Monroe, Fred Thompson's senility, Mitt's creepy creepy version of Mormonism) is the kind of stuff that folks here at DU will complain about if used to any degree...

Most of all, our candidates need to lock arms, work WITH each other, and actually give answers. There's a reason why Dennis keeps popping up real high in freelance polls - He answers the damn question. Right or wrong, the dude has an answer. it's that kind of confidence we need our candidates to show. I love a candidate who understands nuance, but nuance should happen in the head before leaving the mouth.

[BeyondGeography]

7. Yes, he is...and, hopefully, dems won't pass up this opportunity

Great post. :thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

10. They won't, if his present upward trend in Iowa is any indication.

Great pictures. :thumbsup:

[robcon]

9. I think he'll be the next Vice-President

And he'll be the president in 2016.

[Colobo]

12. He should be President in Jan 09.

[robcon]

14. Doesn't he have to win most primary elections to do that?

Although things can change, he is a very distant second in almost every primary contest.

http://www.pollster.com/

[jackbourassa]

19. robcon, is this your first election?

Because poll numbers ARE VERY FLUID things. If Obama wins Iowa, do you think the other numbers will remain static?

Of course they won't. They'll move in his direction as well.

That's why Iowa is so important.

[earthlover]

21. Nice try....but first we have to select a Pres before we denigrate someone to VP status

[eallen]

23. He would not run with Hillary. At least, I hope not. And if not her, who?

[clyrc]

11. Obama will be lucky to approach Jesse Jackson's numbers in 1988

[ClarkUSA]

20. Why do you say that?

Anything to back that up, or is it just your unvarnished opinion?

[illinoisprogressive]

13. Wonderful post! I agree 100% and this is why I am supporting obama

I have seen him from the beginning as the transformation candidate and the one who comes along once in a gneration or so.
i am hoping fellow democrats will wake up to this fact and see him as someone who comes along when our nation is crippled to restore our health.

[ClarkUSA]

35. We're in good company from the looks of it.

I knew all along he was the candidate I liked the most for the reasons you mentioned and more. The fact that more and more
Iowans are seeing in Obama what we see in him is very satisfying and bodes well for Jan. 3 for him against The Face of '90's
Foreign Affairs.

[cali]

15. I agree, it would be a transformative moment

and I believe he could succeed. Of the top three, Obama is easily my favorite.

[elehhhhna]

16. flame away but he is deep into Chicago-style politics and it wil be his undoing.

[ClarkUSA]

22. Links, please? Because every article I've read says the complete opposite.

In fact, his top primary opponent in the Senate race was a son of the Chicago Democratic party boss
who was strongly backed by Mayor Daley.

That man, who lost big to Obama in a shocking result to the Daley machine, turned around and endorsed
him. In following interviews explaining his enthusiastic support of Obama, he said that he admired Obama
for being so successful on his own merits, and not because he was a tool of the Daley machine.

[ClarkUSA]

31. *crickets*

:rofl:

[ripple]

17. Obama is a born leader

And I must have missed Sy Hersh's endorsement. How utterly cool is that? Thanks for the great thread!

:kick:

[ClarkUSA]

33. Yes, he is

And Hersh's endorsement made me psyched, too.

[Perry Logan]

26. I think Obama's followers have totally ruined his chances.

[ClarkUSA]

28. Really, how so?

Aside from picking that opinion out of your ass, that is.

[ClarkUSA]

32. *more crickets*

:rofl:

[denem]

27. A seriously devoted evangelical Christian as President

with dog whistle stances on abortion and gay rights. Is the price too high? We unite the country by courting the Republican base? Obama has been evasive on these issues as the McClurkin debacle and his voting record in Illinois show. It's not what he says, its what he does that matters

[ClarkUSA]

29. A Christian who happens to be *rated the most liberal of all the candidates, including Kucinich?

*By The National Journal, based on 2006 voting records. Because it's not what he says, it's what he does that matters.

It's Hillaryous for you to be talking about "dog-whistle positions" and "courting the Republican base" when you are a devoted admirer of The
Politics of Parsing candidate who voted for TWO blank checks for Bush to pursue preemptive war: IWR and Kyl-Lieberman.

Hillaryworlder Hypocrisy is too funny.

:rofl:

[eallen]

30. Seems to me he has been quite clear on those issues.

More, he has been very clear about the relationship between faith and politics, that those who bring the values of faith to the political table need to express those values in secular terms, rather than expecting the republic to adopt religious terms. Every single candidate running is a Christian. There are no atheists for whom I can vote. It's more important to me to have a candidate who understands the importance of the separation of church and state. And Obama has been crystal clear about <i>that.</i>

:hippie:

[BenDavid]

34. The loons are coming forward and it is scary.

[ClarkUSA]

39. Huh? Are you talking about yourself?

Or Hillary Clinton?

[AtomicKitten]

37. The Seymour Hersh high-five really resonates.

And Laurence Tribe's as well: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3717182

[noiretextatique]

38. it is disturbing

that some people really believe the mere sight of obama (i.e., his skin color) will magically change america and the world. this type of thinking is just bizarre to me.